So it has finally come to this. Bob Dylan is 70. Paul is alive but John is dead. The generation that changed the world in many ways as its cohort moved through the postwar years - and, arguably, the generation that moved fine wine from a niche beverage to an everyday drink for many Americans - is getting old, and we can't handle alcohol the way we used to.

Baby Boomers - the generation that made "if it feels good, do it" a way of life, at least for a while - are drinking more than they should, the National Institutes of Health's National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism warned this week.

Government doctors fret that Boomers are drinking much more than the amount of wine recommended for heart health, writer Anya Martin reported. Government statistics show an 80 percent increase in substance abuse treatment admissions since 2000 for people age 50 and older, and the number of older substance abusers is forecast to triple, up to a predicted 4.4 million, by 2020.

Even without abusing alcohol, federal docs say, Boomers may be at a higher risk of having problems later in life related to excessive drinking or drug use when they were younger. " ... baby boomers were part of a very high drug-use [culture] in general," government health-statistics official Peter Delany said. Added psychologist and addiction researcher Howard Rankin, aging Boomers are at additional risk of drinking-related problems thanks to the cumulative effect of years of alcohol use and the aging body and brain's loss of restorative abilities.

In other words, the effects of drinking hit you faster and harder as you age because your body and brain are no longer able to metabolize alcohol or regenerate brain cells as well as they did back in those days when we were hammering tequila shots.

"I see seniors and retirees doing all sorts of things to preserve their brain function and then drinking a glass of wine or a bottle a night," Rankin told MarketWatch.com. "That’s the worst thing you can do."

As you grow older, you should drink less to stay healthy, but often society gives different cues, he added. Public-health officials fear that many people dramatically over-estimate what constitutes a “standard” drink: 5 ounces of wine, 12 ounces of beer or 1 1/2 ounces of liquor. (He didn't get into the question of today's 15 percent Syrahs or barrel-proof liquors, which presumably make a bad situation worse.)

Huebner said the NIAA set up the Rethinking Drinking website to help seniors, aging Boomers and others draw their own conclusions about drinking.

The Website doesn't claim to be anti-alcohol, assuring visitors that "Drinking can be beneficial or harmful, depending on your age and health status, and, of course, how much you drink. For anyone who drinks, this site offers valuable, research-based information. What do you think about taking a look at your drinking habits and how they may affect your health? Rethinking Drinking can help you get started."

I can't quibble with the underlying principles, and I've always encouraged the <i>moderate</i> enjoyment of fine wine - and ranted against rising alcohol levels - in my articles. Drinking to excess is a bad idea, regardless of your age.

But perhaps I'm feeling my own age here, as a member of the target generation, when I sense the tone of Rethinking Drinking as a bit preachy. Maybe it's sort of like the way we'll feel when our kids start calling up to make sure we're all right.

"I see seniors and retirees doing all sorts of things to preserve their brain function and then drinking a glass of wine or a bottle a night," Rankin told MarketWatch.com. "That’s the worst thing you can do." Really? That's the worst thing I can do? In that case I think I'll check out the crotch rocket motorcycles I've been drooling over for the past thirty years.

This is the problem with these well-intentioned nannies, which is that they overstate their case. I do not believe for one second that a glass or two of wine per evening is doing me harm, much less great harm. The 4-5 glasses that I enjoy on some special occasions might, and I'm willing to take that chance, just as I do with occasional grilled Delmonico steak.

"I see seniors and retirees doing all sorts of things to preserve their brain function and then drinking a glass of wine or a bottle a night," Rankin told MarketWatch.com. "That’s the worst thing you can do."

And there is your insidious money quote that reveals the preachiness---and the devious, insidious, clever, undherhanded way of approaching this issue---you mentioned.

Or let's hone it down to the salient part: "...then drinking a glass of wine or a bottle a night."

See what Rankin has done? A glass automatically becomes a bottle. Thus no differentiation between great grandma who sips a glass of sherry (often at doctor's orders, if a doctor is ministering to the holistic person rather than one facet of a disease or condition) because it helps her digestion, improves her fading appetite, or merely gives her a brief moment of enjoyment and pleasure amidst her infirmities, aches and pains, and the poor sot who compulsively gulps down at least a bottle a night, probably because he's senile or unable to control himself because he's suffering from being old and thus must be watched---probably in a nursing home because we have to take care of people like that every single minute...and as you get older you lose any semblance of your own rights or abilities to make personal decisions, right?

Rankin, for his own reasons, has slyly conflated "any" drink with "too much" drink, and asserted his willingness to control anyone else's drinking. Or anything else he wants to control.

1. No effort is made to take into account what amounts to a "moderate" consumption level for various body sizes, ages, etc.2. Because of this, what many would consider a moderate consumption level (187.5 ml of wine 4-5x weekly) gets classified as "heavy" drinking with all of its associated baggage.3. No attempt is made to take into account patterns of consumption: is alcohol consumed with meals? over what length of time is alcohol consumed?4. No information is provided about the actual relationship of various health risks or, conversely, health benefits to the amount of alcohol consumed. How much is cancer risk increased by changing 5 oz of wine per day to 10 oz? Let's see the actual data.

As usual, as a researcher peripherally involved in the health care field, I am disappointed that the NIH, the folks who pay my bills, are so unable to present the American public with a balanced, information-based outreach program.

Interesting. I didn't feel like the website ignored any of the issues you mentioned, Mark. Though perhaps the focus of the website and the public outreach might not have been crafted to address those questions.

Mark Lipton wrote:1. No effort is made to take into account what amounts to a "moderate" consumption level for various body sizes, ages, etc.

Research shows that women start to have alcohol-related problems at lower drinking levels than men do. One reason is that, on average, women weigh less than men. In addition, alcohol disperses in body water, and pound for pound, women have less water in their bodies than men do. So after a man and woman of the same weight drink the same amount of alcohol, the woman's blood alcohol concentration will tend to be higher, putting her at greater risk for harm.

“Low risk” is not “no risk.” Even within these limits, drinkers can have problems if they drink too quickly, have health problems, or are older (both men and women over 65 are generally advised to have no more than 3 drinks on any day and 7 per week). Based on your health and how alcohol affects you, you may need to drink less or not at all.

2. Because of this, what many would consider a moderate consumption level (187.5 ml of wine 4-5x weekly) gets classified as "heavy" drinking with all of its associated baggage.

For healthy adults in general, drinking more than these single-day or weekly limits is considered "at-risk" or "heavy" drinking:

• Men: More than 4 drinks on any day or 14 per week

• Women: More than 3 drinks on any day or 7 per week

And, if I'm reading this right, they classify a 5oz glass (148ml) of 12% abv wine as a a drink. So heavy drinking would be 148ml of wine 14 times per week.

3. No attempt is made to take into account patterns of consumption: is alcohol consumed with meals? over what length of time is alcohol consumed?

Include food. Don't drink on an empty stomach. Eat some food so the alcohol will be absorbed into your system more slowly.Pace yourself. Sip slowly so that you have no more than one standard drink with alcohol per hour. Have "drink spacers"—make every other drink a non-alcoholic one, such as water, soda, or juice. Note that it takes about 2 hours for the adult body to completely break down a single drink.

4. No information is provided about the actual relationship of various health risks or, conversely, health benefits to the amount of alcohol consumed. How much is cancer risk increased by changing 5 oz of wine per day to 10 oz? Let's see the actual data.

As I alluded to above, the aim of the public outreach is clearly toward minimizing the harm caused by heavy drinking, rather than parsing out relationships that exist between alcohol and health at moderate drinking levels.

You may have heard that regular light to moderate drinking can be good for the heart. With heavy or at-risk drinking, however, any potential benefits are outweighed by greater risks, including [yadda yadda yadda]

The first line I read on the website is "How much alcohol is too much" and it's clear to me that the public outreach and website are addressed toward that issue as a legitimate public health issue rather than the broader relationship between alcohol consumption and health that you and many other winelovers might be interested in.

Keith M wrote:Interesting. I didn't feel like the website ignored any of the issues you mentioned, Mark. Though perhaps the focus of the website and the public outreach might not have been crafted to address those questions.

Mark Lipton wrote:1. No effort is made to take into account what amounts to a "moderate" consumption level for various body sizes, ages, etc.

Research shows that women start to have alcohol-related problems at lower drinking levels than men do. One reason is that, on average, women weigh less than men. In addition, alcohol disperses in body water, and pound for pound, women have less water in their bodies than men do. So after a man and woman of the same weight drink the same amount of alcohol, the woman's blood alcohol concentration will tend to be higher, putting her at greater risk for harm.

But, looking at the recommendations seen below, they are lumping a 140 lb man in with a 220 lb man, despite the fact that there's a 55% increase in body mass and a resulting change in the absorption and metabolism of alcohol. So, perhaps we can agree that the recommendations are overly simplistic? It wouldn't have been overly difficult to divide up humanity into 4 or 5 weight groups rather than the misleading man/woman divide.

Additionally, looking at their recommendations, men can drink 33% more on a daily basis but 50% more on a weekly basis??? Forgive me if I begin to question the science behind those numbers when I see such a disparity.

2. Because of this, what many would consider a moderate consumption level (187.5 ml of wine 4-5x weekly) gets classified as "heavy" drinking with all of its associated baggage.

For healthy adults in general, drinking more than these single-day or weekly limits is considered "at-risk" or "heavy" drinking:

• Men: More than 4 drinks on any day or 14 per week

• Women: More than 3 drinks on any day or 7 per week

This is at odds, though, with their calculator, in which the numbers I report were classified as heavy drinking. Specifically, it commented that, in response to the answer that I'd had more than 4 "standard" drinks at least once in the past year, I drank more than the daily or weekly limits. That statement is flatly incorrect.

3. No attempt is made to take into account patterns of consumption: is alcohol consumed with meals? over what length of time is alcohol consumed?

Include food. Don't drink on an empty stomach. Eat some food so the alcohol will be absorbed into your system more slowly.Pace yourself. Sip slowly so that you have no more than one standard drink with alcohol per hour. Have "drink spacers"—make every other drink a non-alcoholic one, such as water, soda, or juice. Note that it takes about 2 hours for the adult body to completely break down a single drink.

So, how do those changes affect the recommendations given above? Are four shots of vodka in 30 min. really as acceptable as a bottle of Riesling Kabinett consumed over the course of a 3.5 hour meal?

4. No information is provided about the actual relationship of various health risks or, conversely, health benefits to the amount of alcohol consumed. How much is cancer risk increased by changing 5 oz of wine per day to 10 oz? Let's see the actual data.

As I alluded to above, the aim of the public outreach is clearly toward minimizing the harm caused by heavy drinking, rather than parsing out relationships that exist between alcohol and health at moderate drinking levels.

You may have heard that regular light to moderate drinking can be good for the heart. With heavy or at-risk drinking, however, any potential benefits are outweighed by greater risks, including [yadda yadda yadda]

The first line I read on the website is "How much alcohol is too much" and it's clear to me that the public outreach and website are addressed toward that issue as a legitimate public health issue rather than the broader relationship between alcohol consumption and health that you and many other winelovers might be interested in.

But I think that many in the American public are skeptical enough about claims of alcohol and health, especially given the history of religion-based advocacy on the topic, that making recommendations in the absence of disclosure of the actual risks/benefits involved gives the appearance, rightly or wrongly, of more slanted science.

Mark Lipton wrote:But, looking at the recommendations seen below, they are lumping a 140 lb man in with a 220 lb man, despite the fact that there's a 55% increase in body mass and a resulting change in the absorption and metabolism of alcohol. So, perhaps we can agree that the recommendations are overly simplistic? It wouldn't have been overly difficult to divide up humanity into 4 or 5 weight groups rather than the misleading man/woman divide.

Nope, it wouldn't have been overly difficult. Which makes me wonder why they didn't. Clearly they have all the data they need to package it in that way, yet they chose not to. But why? Could be just sloppy or could be by keeping things overly simplistic the overall effectiveness of their public health campaign is increased. I have no experience in public health, but the "keep it simple" mantra seems like a mainstay of any campaign targeted at a broad audience whose members might only give any campaign materials fleeting and tangential attention. It would be interesting to learn why they chose to shape the categories the way that they did.

Additionally, looking at their recommendations, men can drink 33% more on a daily basis but 50% more on a weekly basis??? Forgive me if I begin to question the science behind those numbers when I see such a disparity.

Yup, I saw that and noted it looked weird as well. But the science may well support it, in that the male body develops a way to deal with long and repeated interactions with alcohol in a way that the female body does not. Again, would be fascinating to learn the reason behind the discrepancy, but such a discrepancy certainly doesn't, by itself, lead me to conclude that it couldn't be based on good science with good data.

This is at odds, though, with their calculator, in which the numbers I report were classified as heavy drinking. Specifically, it commented that, in response to the answer that I'd had more than 4 "standard" drinks at least once in the past year, I drank more than the daily or weekly limits. That statement is flatly incorrect.

Hmmm. Didn't see that.

3. No attempt is made to take into account patterns of consumption: is alcohol consumed with meals? over what length of time is alcohol consumed?

Include food. Don't drink on an empty stomach. Eat some food so the alcohol will be absorbed into your system more slowly.Pace yourself. Sip slowly so that you have no more than one standard drink with alcohol per hour. Have "drink spacers"—make every other drink a non-alcoholic one, such as water, soda, or juice. Note that it takes about 2 hours for the adult body to completely break down a single drink.

So, how do those changes affect the recommendations given above? Are four shots of vodka in 30 min. really as acceptable as a bottle of Riesling Kabinett consumed over the course of a 3.5 hour meal?

Are we reading the same quotes? The quotes indicate that food and time are two significant factors that affect how alcohol will be absorbed.

It doesn't seem to make any claims as to whether the source of the alcohol (beer, wine, fortified, or spirits) matters beyond the alcohol per unit of volume. But I myself am not sure of what useful generalizations exist there that would be helpful to know.

Mark Lipton wrote:But, looking at the recommendations seen below, they are lumping a 140 lb man in with a 220 lb man, despite the fact that there's a 55% increase in body mass and a resulting change in the absorption and metabolism of alcohol. So, perhaps we can agree that the recommendations are overly simplistic? It wouldn't have been overly difficult to divide up humanity into 4 or 5 weight groups rather than the misleading man/woman divide.

Nope, it wouldn't have been overly difficult. Which makes me wonder why they didn't. Clearly they have all the data they need to package it in that way, yet they chose not to. But why? Could be just sloppy or could be by keeping things overly simplistic the overall effectiveness of their public health campaign is increased. I have no experience in public health, but the "keep it simple" mantra seems like a mainstay of any campaign targeted at a broad audience whose members might only give any campaign materials fleeting and tangential attention. It would be interesting to learn why they chose to shape the categories the way that they did.

Additionally, looking at their recommendations, men can drink 33% more on a daily basis but 50% more on a weekly basis??? Forgive me if I begin to question the science behind those numbers when I see such a disparity.

Yup, I saw that and noted it looked weird as well. But the science may well support it, in that the male body develops a way to deal with long and repeated interactions with alcohol in a way that the female body does not. Again, would be fascinating to learn the reason behind the discrepancy, but such a discrepancy certainly doesn't, by itself, lead me to conclude that it couldn't be based on good science with good data.

This is at odds, though, with their calculator, in which the numbers I report were classified as heavy drinking. Specifically, it commented that, in response to the answer that I'd had more than 4 "standard" drinks at least once in the past year, I drank more than the daily or weekly limits. That statement is flatly incorrect.

Hmmm. Didn't see that.

3. No attempt is made to take into account patterns of consumption: is alcohol consumed with meals? over what length of time is alcohol consumed?

Include food. Don't drink on an empty stomach. Eat some food so the alcohol will be absorbed into your system more slowly.Pace yourself. Sip slowly so that you have no more than one standard drink with alcohol per hour. Have "drink spacers"—make every other drink a non-alcoholic one, such as water, soda, or juice. Note that it takes about 2 hours for the adult body to completely break down a single drink.

So, how do those changes affect the recommendations given above? Are four shots of vodka in 30 min. really as acceptable as a bottle of Riesling Kabinett consumed over the course of a 3.5 hour meal?

Are we reading the same quotes? The quotes indicate that food and time are two significant factors that affect how alcohol will be absorbed.

It doesn't seem to make any claims as to whether the source of the alcohol (beer, wine, fortified, or spirits) matters beyond the alcohol per unit of volume. But I myself am not sure of what useful generalizations exist there that would be helpful to know.

Florida Jim wrote:For purposes of this discussion, let's just assume that the article has a slant and that we can pick it apart all day long

Nobody gets out of here alive.Do what you do, try not to hurt anybody else, give your excesses some thought if you can and please, quit the holier than thou crap.

Oh yes; and buy the motorcycle if you can afford it.Best, Jim

Many years ago while driving a motorcycle I had an arguement with a streetcar at an intersection in Los Angeles, an arguement that I lost badly. I love your written bit until the topic of motorcycles came up.

Florida Jim wrote:For purposes of this discussion, let's just assume that the article has a slant and that we can pick it apart all day long

Nobody gets out of here alive.Do what you do, try not to hurt anybody else, give your excesses some thought if you can and please, quit the holier than thou crap.

Oh yes; and buy the motorcycle if you can afford it.Best, Jim

Many years ago while driving a motorcycle I had an arguement with a streetcar at an intersection in Los Angeles, an arguement that I lost badly. I love your written bit until the topic of motorcycles came up.

Lou,I have had an argument with myself for years regarding motorcycles. And when I was a cop I worked motorcycle accidents and never did the cyclist walk away.To date, I have not purchased a motorcycle.Maybe I'm not as brazen as I think I am.Best, Jim

I 'm in the writer's high risk bracket, but I can fix that. Assuming his one five-ounce glass a day rule applies to 150 pound males, all I have to do is increase my present weight from 155 to 620 and I think I'll be OK. Most of the time.

But come to think of it, I like to ride my bicycle in the mountains, sometimes in the rain and traffic, and that might be a tad risky at 620. So maybe I should stop drinking wine.

But then I'd lose most of my friends. The only ones I'd have left would be a bunch of crazy bicyclists, so I'd ride in the mountains more, and these guys don't give a damn about rain and traffic and going 40+ miles an hour on blind downhill curves and I'd be trying to keep up with them. So maybe I should stop drinking wine and stop cycling.

But then I'd have no friends at all and I'd get fat, and obese guys my age with no friends have a life expectancy of about six months.

[quote="Mark Lipton"]So, how do those changes affect the recommendations given above? Are four shots of vodka in 30 min. really as acceptable as a bottle of Riesling Kabinett consumed over the course of a 3.5 hour meal?

[quote]

This is one aspect of classifying drinking that's always bothered me. Trying to look at alcohol consumption without considering how quickly it's consumed just seems irrelevant. I never come home and gulp down a cocktail and a couple of glasses of wine in ten minutes. I know how I'd feel if I did. But I very well might come home, have a cocktail, cook supper, have a glass of wine with my meal, and then have another as I clean up the dishes and relax afterwards. And that whole process generally takes three to four hours. I don't get to the point where I feel any significant effects from the alcohol and I'm pretty sure my blood alcohol level stays pretty low. Three shots of vodka in ten minutes and I know with certainty that the immediate effects would be very different. Hard to believe that the long term effects of that sort of drinking wouldn't also be more severe.

An idiot wrote: "I see seniors and retirees doing all sorts of things to preserve their brain function and then drinking a glass of wine or a bottle a night," Rankin told MarketWatch.com. "That’s the worst thing you can do."

What senseless drivel!What unmitigated, puritanical horseshit!

If this individual wants to decry alchol abuse, you won't find me arguing with him at all.

But perhaps the numbskull should try and understand the difference between consuming a *glass* of wine and a *bottle* of wine!!!

The government sometimes, oftentimes in fact, does things on our behalf. And then you see, other times, how wasteful and stupid it can be...

If the idiot who write this report was in Junior High School, I would smile tolerantly at his flaws in logic and facts. If he was anywhere higher on the educational level and wrote such a report, I would insist that he practice a bit of self inflicted mutilation.

Unfortunately the USA has no monopoly in this type of Public Health ayatollah. They are also very vocal in my native Britain and neighbouring France. I wonder if medical and para-medical practitioners, especially those with an administrative role, are not taught nowadays to demonize alcohol consumed in in almost any quantities. There is a flavour coming from this article with its links (and others like it elsewhere) that alcohol is a "bad thing", but with a reluctant tolerance up to 7 drinks per week for those oldsters who are sort of "addicted". Contrast this to the approach of Roger Corder (The Wine Diet), who recognises that alcohol, particularly wine, can be a "good thing" but with dangers if certain limits (much higher than 7 drinks per week!) are breached.

Recently I had an appointment with a new (to me) doctor. Included in the jump through the hoops and tell all, was the question(s) do you drink alcohol? And, how much? My answers were yes, and 1, the nurse noticed my answer and asked about it. I told her that I seldom drink anything at all, except dinner wine. She then concluded that I drink one glass of wine per day. I corrected her by saying "some days that is true, but other days I might drink the whole bottle. I didn't go on to explain that the consumption of a bottle usually takes 5 or more hours. I am 72 years old, and I ENJOY wine. Don't smoke, don't chase women, don't hang out in smokey bars or pool halls, don't take a gun into the woods, don't watch a lot of tv. My point is that at 72 years of age and given the life span of an American male is 75 years and 2 months, I am not jumping through hoops to please demagogue types who believe their ways are the chosen ways. If one doesn't believe them, just ask them. Do I drink too much wine? I probably do. Am I going to change because someone said I should? Probably not. And if I told the whole truth, I am as much or more concerned about the number of wine calories I consume than I am of the amount of wine alcohol I consume. Let the arrows fly.

I'm not a baby boomer but for the record, I lost about 40 pounds over a period of a year and have been holding that weight steadily for almost a year, with further loss of body fat and am now training for a half-marathon . All on a weekly intake of about two-three bottles of wine.

Bob Henrick wrote:Recently I had an appointment with a new (to me) doctor. Included in the jump through the hoops and tell all, was the question(s) do you drink alcohol? And, how much? My answers were yes, and 1, the nurse noticed my answer and asked about it. I told her that I seldom drink anything at all, except dinner wine. She then concluded that I drink one glass of wine per day. I corrected her by saying "some days that is true, but other days I might drink the whole bottle. I didn't go on to explain that the consumption of a bottle usually takes 5 or more hours. I am 72 years old, and I ENJOY wine. Don't smoke, don't chase women, don't hang out in smokey bars or pool halls, don't take a gun into the woods, don't watch a lot of tv. My point is that at 72 years of age and given the life span of an American male is 75 years and 2 months, I am not jumping through hoops to please demagogue types who believe their ways are the chosen ways. If one doesn't believe them, just ask them. Do I drink too much wine? I probably do. Am I going to change because someone said I should? Probably not. And if I told the whole truth, I am as much or more concerned about the number of wine calories I consume than I am of the amount of wine alcohol I consume. Let the arrows fly.

Bob Henrick wrote:Recently I had an appointment with a new (to me) doctor. Included in the jump through the hoops and tell all, was the question(s) do you drink alcohol? And, how much? My answers were yes, and 1, the nurse noticed my answer and asked about it. I told her that I seldom drink anything at all, except dinner wine. She then concluded that I drink one glass of wine per day. I corrected her by saying "some days that is true, but other days I might drink the whole bottle. I didn't go on to explain that the consumption of a bottle usually takes 5 or more hours. I am 72 years old, and I ENJOY wine. Don't smoke, don't chase women, don't hang out in smokey bars or pool halls, don't take a gun into the woods, don't watch a lot of tv. My point is that at 72 years of age and given the life span of an American male is 75 years and 2 months, I am not jumping through hoops to please demagogue types who believe their ways are the chosen ways. If one doesn't believe them, just ask them. Do I drink too much wine? I probably do. Am I going to change because someone said I should? Probably not. And if I told the whole truth, I am as much or more concerned about the number of wine calories I consume than I am of the amount of wine alcohol I consume. Let the arrows fly.

I'm with you Bob except I don't chase women because I'm afraid I might catch one. Then what would I do?

All that said, I expect that over-indulgence in wine or food could put a finger on the scales as far as mortality (and more important, overall health) is concerned; and of course, none of us know the day or the hour that we'll pass on - we might win or lose against the averages. But if you're trying to play the odds, at your age you're looking at 12 more years, not just 3 more years.

All that said, I expect that over-indulgence in wine or food could put a finger on the scales as far as mortality (and more important, overall health) is concerned; and of course, none of us know the day or the hour that we'll pass on - we might win or lose against the averages. But if you're trying to play the odds, at your age you're looking at 12 more years, not just 3 more years.

The extra years are a bonus and I'll take them. Actually I doubt I could drink by age 75 what is in the cellar now, much less buying more ESJ and Musar. Plan on getting 2-3 1999 Musar rouge this week or next. The Musar should be easy to drink, but the price is a bit hard to swallow.